bit-gamer.net

Ubisoft: Games to cost $60m soon

Ubisoft: Games to cost $60m soon

Ubisoft's Yves Guillemot reckons that game budgets will soon reach an average of around $60 million USD.

Ubisoft boss Yves Guillemot wants us to know that making games is a serious, expensive business, predicting that the average cost of making a AAA-grade game will soon cost around $60 million USD - or £37 million GBP per title.

Discussing the topic of budgets with CNBC, Guillemot claimed that the next generation of games will be comparable to making a full CGI movie.

"The next generation is going to be so powerful that playing a game is going to be the equivalent of playing a CGI movie today," Guillemot said in the interview.

He then went on to discuss how these rising expectations will affect budgets, pushing expenses up from the current average of $30 million USD (£18.5 million GBP) and potentially doubling them in the near future.

Speaking about what this next generation of consoles may hold for gamers, Guillemot downplayed the importance of motion-sensing tech for hardcore gamers and insisted that there was still a lot of enjoyment that could be had from using a standard gamepad - and that a gamepad wouldn't leave you physically exhausted.

"The current pad for gamers is giving them a lot," he said. "They play for hours, so they don't want to get up and down. They don’t want to be tired after five minutes. These games are about reactivity."

What do you think? Is that why you prefer playing on the PC rather than the Wii? Let us know in the forums.

15 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Leitchy 16th June 2009, 11:40 Quote
Money well spent to be honest, there creating an experiance for $60 mil that lasts for 6 hours + in a game, when for the same money, your getting a 2 hour movie at most.
lewchenko 16th June 2009, 11:47 Quote
People still complain these days when a game gives less than 20hrs gameplay... which is crazy really considering you probably paid about £30 for it... The only way it will work when higher CGI etc is required is for shorter games which still give good value (say upto 6hrs single player plus multiplayer replay value) for the same price.

A good multiplayer online experience is key I think here to differentiate the good games that give value vs the ones that dont. Look at PC games like Battlefield 2, Supreme Commander and Left 4 Dead. Cost per hour of play must now be measured in peanuts for me since their multiplayer value is so good.

A movie at £13 say is 2hrs, so games are still good value. People's expectations are out of whack with reality.
liratheal 16th June 2009, 11:47 Quote
Agreed, pretty much.

Comparing their budgets to film budgets?

Games tend to be longer, and while some are as atrociously written as a Van Damme film, usually last longer and have more replayability than a movie has re-watch..ability?
proxess 16th June 2009, 11:50 Quote
AAA-grade games? When was the last time that one of those came around?
mikeuk2004 16th June 2009, 12:21 Quote
Its alot of money needed for a gamble. Thats really what it is because you have no idea how well its going to sell.
liratheal 16th June 2009, 12:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeuk2004
Its alot of money needed for a gamble. Thats really what it is because you have no idea how well its going to sell.

The same is true of movies - A producer/director/whoever can't reasonably say "This is going to make X million dollars" every single time.
Mentai 16th June 2009, 12:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by proxess
AAA-grade games? When was the last time that one of those came around?

Haha +1

It's true in a way, the last game I consider to be AAA was HL2. Not only was it the best (by far) single player FPS I had ever played, it also came with CSS, which had more playability for me than most people I suspect, since I had never played CS beforehand.

So to answer your question, 5 years ago.
Xtrafresh 16th June 2009, 12:59 Quote
Isn't it the big shots themselves that are setting these budgets? And now they start complaining!

These assholes are managing the wonderful art of the videogame into the ground.
mclean007 16th June 2009, 13:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
The same is true of movies - A producer/director/whoever can't reasonably say "This is going to make X million dollars" every single time.
Unless it has Matthew McConaughey in it, in which case the director could pretty much polish a turd (and they usually do) and women will still flock to it. Guaranteed theatre-filler - bam!
Skiddywinks 16th June 2009, 13:25 Quote
Got to agree with the multiplayer aspect adding a lot of value. I can't count the number of epic, several hour long multiplayer sessions of SupCom I have had.
liratheal 16th June 2009, 13:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Unless it has Matthew McConaughey in it, in which case the director could pretty much polish a turd (and they usually do) and women will still flock to it. Guaranteed theatre-filler - bam!

Hahahaha. I can't say I've experienced any of his films, or any woman-based crazying over him. Perhaps I ought to hang around with more females..
Er-El 16th June 2009, 16:02 Quote
He's just making excuses for games continuing to be too expensive or maybe getting even more so with the next generation of consoles.

It doesn't make sense to me how we hear all these reports about games selling better than movies and music; a game costing less to make than a full length action-CGI movie like Transformers 2, The Matrix, whatever; a movie costs £6/$10 to go and see at the cinemas and a bit more to buy the DVD, yet games still are still priced £30/40!
Chocobollz 16th June 2009, 16:30 Quote
Maybe we should start making another company named "Singkong-soft"? :-)
metarinka 16th June 2009, 18:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Er-El
He's just making excuses for games continuing to be too expensive or maybe getting even more so with the next generation of consoles.

It doesn't make sense to me how we hear all these reports about games selling better than movies and music; a game costing less to make than a full length action-CGI movie like Transformers 2, The Matrix, whatever; a movie costs £6/$10 to go and see at the cinemas and a bit more to buy the DVD, yet games still are still priced £30/40!

the user base for a console game is much smaller than movies which appeal to a broader audience. IF you go see transformers 2 with a family of 4 that's ~$40 in tickets. If you buy a game for your whole family that's ~$60 per family, no one buys more than one copy. and the consoles only have several million users where as pretty much everyone can go watch a movie on several different continents.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you would be surprised how much it costs to employee 100 people for the 1+ years it takes to make a polished game especially creating all the content that's the real time sink and it only gets bigger as graphics improve.
VaLkyR-Assassin 16th June 2009, 20:56 Quote
I can't believe people here are actually justifying the ridiculously small game-playing times; have you gone mad? What ever happened to great games that you could play for hours on end? When I think of all the great games I've played, they're nowhere near the tiny level given as acceptable here. I'm glad those people aren't in charge of these game companies.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums